Varenicline versus nicotine patch with brief advice for smokers with substance use disorders with or without depression: effects on smoking, substance use and depressive symptoms

Effects of Varenicline, Bupropion, Nicotine Patch, and Placebo on Treating Smoking Among Persons With Current or Past Major Depressive Disorder: Secondary Analysis of a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the leading smoking cessation medications among individuals with current versus past major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind trial over 12 weeks with varenicline or bupropion, followed by a 12-week assessment, in participants ages 18-75 with past (N=2,174) or current (N=451) MDD or without psychiatric disorders (N=4,028). Interventions included 12 weeks of pharmacotherapy with placebo, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; nicotine patch), bupropion, or varenicline, and brief counseling. The primary safety outcome was occurrence of one or more moderate to severe neuropsychiatric adverse events. Efficacy was assessed as biochemically verified continuous abstinence during weeks 9-12.

RESULTS

Among all 6,653 participants, the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events did not differ by medication within the past-MDD, current-MDD, or nonpsychiatric cohorts. The MDD cohorts had higher risk difference (p<0.001) for neuropsychiatric adverse events compared with the nonpsychiatric cohort (past-MDD cohort, risk difference=-0.03, 95% CI=-0.05, -0.02; current-MDD cohort, risk difference=-0.02, 95% CI=-0.05, 0.00). Within the past-MDD cohort, the odds ratios compared with placebo were 3.0 (95% CI=2.0, 4.5) for varenicline, 2.1 (95% CI=1.6, 2.7) for bupropion, and 2.1 (95% CI=1.4, 3.2) for NRT. Within the current-MDD cohort, varenicline differed from placebo (odds ratio=2.67, 95% CI=1.2, 6.15) and NRT (odds ratio=2.93, 95% CI=1.2, 7.2).

CONCLUSIONS

All medications were generally safe in both MDD cohorts. NRT and bupropion were not more effective than placebo for those with current MDD. Varenicline plus counseling may be the best treatment for individuals with past or current MDD, given its greater efficacy, similar risk of adverse events, and, for those with current depression, reductions in anxiety and depression while trying to quit smoking.

Mental health related adverse events of cytisine and varenicline in smokers with and without mental health disorders: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about the adverse events (AEs) of cytisine versus varenicline among individuals with mental health disorders (MHDs), highlighting the necessity for further exploration to inform clinical practice. This secondary analysis of clinical trial data aimed to investigate the effect of varenicline vs. cytisine regarding mental-health-related AEs (MH-related AEs) on smokers with and without MHDs.

METHODS

Australian daily smokers interested in quitting were randomised to varenicline (84 days) or cytisine (25 days) and categorised by self-reported MHD diagnosis or treatment in the past year (MHD or non-MHD groups). Treatment adherence was assessed by self-reported number of doses taken during the active treatment phase via two check-in calls (at one month), while AEs were evaluated through four phone interviews: two check-in calls (one month) and follow-up calls at four and seven months. Logistic regression analysis compared MH-related AEs between groups, including only participants taking at least one dose.

RESULTS

Of 1452 smokers 246 reported MHDs, 725 received cytisine and 727 received varenicline. Median number of doses taken was comparable between MHD (34 cytisine and 12 varenicline) and non-MHD (33 cytisine and 13 varenicline) groups. MH-related AEs were: 14.1 % (n = 30) in MHD (12.5 % in cytisine and 15.4 % in varenicline), and 11.8 % (n = 126) in non-MHD group (10.9 % in cytisine and 13.7 % in varenicline). No significant difference in MH-related AE occurrence was identified between medication groups (aOR=0.96, 95 % CI 0.4 to 2.2, p-value = 0.94).

CONCLUSION

Comparable MH-related AEs were observed between smokers with and without MHDs, suggesting that cytisine, like varenicline, may be well-tolerated by those with MHDs. However, larger clinical trials focused on MH-related AEs are needed for more conclusive evidence.

Identifying determinants of varenicline adherence using the Theoretical Domains framework: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Adhering to varenicline has been shown to significantly improve the chances of successfully quitting smoking, with studies indicating a twofold increase in 6-month quit rates. However, despite its potential benefits, many individuals struggle with maintaining good adherence to varenicline; thus there is a need to develop scalable strategies to help people adhere. As a first step to inform the development of an intervention to improve adherence to varenicline, we conducted a rapid literature review to identify: 1) modifiable barriers and facilitators to varenicline adherence, and 2) behaviour change techniques associated with increased adherence to varenicline.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published between 2006 and 2022. Search terms included "varenicline," "smoking cessation," and "adherence," and their respective subject headings and synonyms. We screened and included studies reporting modifiable determinants of adherence to varenicline and then assessed quality, extracted modifiable determinants and mapped them to the Theoretical Domains Framework version 2 and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1.

RESULTS

A total of 1,221 titles were identified through the database searches; 61 met the eligibility criteria. Most of the studies were randomized controlled trials and predominantly focused on barriers to varenicline. Only nine studies explicitly mentioned behaviour change techniques used to help varenicline adherence. Eight domains were identified as barriers to varenicline adherence (behavioural regulation, memory, goals, intentions, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, optimism/pessimism, and environmental context) and five as facilitators (knowledge, behavioural regulation, beliefs about capabilities, social influences, and environmental context).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies barriers and facilitators that should be addressed when developing a complex adherence intervention tailored to patients' needs based on modifiable determinants of medication adherence, some of which are under- used by existing adherence interventions. The findings from this review will inform the design of a theory-based healthbot planned to improve varenicline adherence in people undergoing smoking cessation treatment.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42022321838).

Treatment adherence in a smoking cessation clinical trial for individuals with current or past major depressive disorder: Predictors and association with cessation

INTRODUCTION

Individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit high rates of tobacco use and lower responsiveness to tobacco cessation treatments. Treatment adherence is a strong predictor of treatment outcomes in the general population but has not been evaluated in this under-served community of smokers with MDD.

METHODS

We used data from a randomized clinical trial on smoking cessation treatment among 300 smokers with MDD to examine the rate of adherence (medication and counseling), the association of adherence with cessation outcomes, and factors associated with adherence, including demographic and smoking characteristics, psychiatric characteristics, smoking cessation processes (e.g., withdrawal, reinforcers), and treatment-related side effects (e.g., nausea).

RESULTS

Overall, 43.7% of participants were adherent with medication and 63.0% were adherent with counseling. Medication adherence was significantly associated with cessation, with 32.1% of adherent vs. 13.0% of non-adherent participants quitting smoking at EOT. Counseling adherence was also significantly associated with cessation, with 32.3% of adherent vs. 2.7% of non-adherent participants quitting smoking. Multivariate regression models showed that medication adherence was associated with higher engagement in complementary reinforcers and higher baseline smoking reward, while counseling adherence was associated with identifying as female, lower alcohol use and nicotine dependence, higher baseline smoking reward, and higher engagement in substitute and complementary reinforcers within the first weeks of medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

As with the general population of smokers, non-adherence to treatment in smokers experiencing depression is widespread and a significant barrier to cessation. Interventions that target reinforcers may improve rates of treatment adherence.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. 

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline.

Data collection and analysis

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

Main results

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.

We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.

Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.

Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects?

Key messages

· Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together).

· Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline.

· Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also  investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time.

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:

· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking.

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

· bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking);

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries.

Main results

People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people).

Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people).

For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop.

The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence.

Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true.

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Study title: A systematic review of RCTs to examine the risk of adverse cardiovascular events with nicotine use

Associations between cigarette smoking and increased risk of cardiovascular disease are well established. However, it is unclear whether the association is mediated by exposure to nicotine and/or to other constituents in cigarette smoke. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) was to identify any potential associations between exposure to nicotine and the risk of clinically diagnosed adverse cardiovascular events in adult current users and nonusers of tobacco products. Among 1,996 results, 42 studies, comparing nicotine and non-nicotine groups, were included and were both qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized across the outcomes of arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death. The majority of studies evaluating nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death reported no events that occurred in either the nicotine or non-nicotine control groups. Among the studies that reported events, rates of adverse events were similarly low between both groups. Consistent with findings from previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, pooled data showed that rates for arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death were not significantly different between nicotine and non-nicotine groups. The overall quality of the body of evidence for each of the four outcomes of interest was graded as "moderate," limited only by the imprecision of results. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that, with moderate certainty, there are no significant associations between the use of nicotine and the risk of clinically diagnosed adverse cardiovascular events-specifically, arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death.

Varenicline and related interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Based on randomized controlled trials, a network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment effects across varenicline and related smoking interventions.

METHODS

English databases were screened for randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of varenicline as treatment for smoking. The risk of bias in included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and the GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the tobacco treatment effects of different interventions.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies involving 26,130 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. Varenicline and 11 other interventions were reported, yielding 66 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline monotherapy or its combination with other interventions were superior in achieving smoking cessation compared to bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo. Furthermore, compared to the varenicline, evident abstinence superiority was found in varenicline + bupropion (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [1.02, 2.18]). Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that varenicline + bupropion has the highest probability to become the best intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline monotherapy increased the odds of smoking cessation further than bupropion monotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo, while varenicline combined with other interventions may even achieve a better abstinence effect. More credible evidence has been reported indicating that the combination of varenicline and bupropion is a superior treatment for smoking.

Nicotine and opioid co-dependence: Findings from bench research to clinical trials

Concomitant use of tobacco and opioids represents a growing public health concern. In fact, the mortality rate due to smoking-related illness approaches 50% among SUD patients. Cumulative evidence demonstrates that the vulnerability to drugs of abuse is influenced by behavioral, environmental, and genetic factors. This review explores the contribution of genetics and neural mechanisms influencing nicotine and opioid reward, respiration, and antinociception, emphasizing the interaction of cholinergic and opioid receptor systems. Despite the substantial evidence demonstrating nicotine-opioid interactions within the brain and on behavior, the currently available pharmacotherapies targeting these systems have shown limited efficacy for smoking cessation on opioid-maintained smokers. Thus, further studies designed to identify novel targets modulating both nicotinic and opioid receptor systems may lead to more efficacious approaches for co-morbid nicotine dependence and opioid use disorder.

Timing of smoking cessation treatment integrated into outpatient treatment with medications for opioid use disorder: Feasibility trial

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking rates among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) are notoriously high and may be improved by considering the timing of treatment integration for these two substances. The current study examined the feasibility of a method for assessing the timing of integrating smoking cessation pharmacotherapy within three different phases of outpatient treatment with medication for OUD (MOUD).

METHODS

Seventy-four buprenorphine-maintained smokers were enrolled in a quasi-experimental study across three MOUD treatment phases: 0-90 (Phase 1), 91-365 (Phase 2), and > 365 days of MOUD treatment (Phase 3). During a 12-week varenicline-based intervention, the study assessed outcomes daily via text messages (cigarette smoking, varenicline adherence, side effects) or monthly at in-person visits (quit motivation and carbon monoxide levels).

RESULTS

Thirty-five participants completed the study, with a lower retention rate in Phase 1 (37.5%) relative to Phases 2 (53.5%) or 3 (57.1%). A trend occurred for Phase 1 participants to report aversive side effects (e.g., abnormal dreams, gastrointestinal distress) on more study days. Among completers, adherence to text messaging and varenicline use was high and independent of MOUD treatment phase. Participants in all phases reported declines in cigarette smoking and increases in quit motivation over time; the study observed biochemically verified tobacco abstinence among only a few participants from Phases 2 or 3.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study demonstrates a method to evaluate the timing of treatment integration for cigarette smoking and MOUD. Method strengths include a study schedule that coincided with the MOUD clinic schedule and use of text messaging to encourage varenicline adherence and evaluate outcomes regularly.

Risk of depression in patients with oral cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Taiwan

This study investigates an association between oral cancers and the risk of developing depression. We conducted a total of 3031 patients with newly diagnosed oral cancers and 9093 age-, sex-, and index year-matched controls (1:3) from 2000 to 2013 were selected from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan. After adjusting for confounding factors, multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to compare the risk of depression over a 13-year follow-up. Of the patients with oral cancer, 69 (2.28%, or 288.57 per 105 person-years) developed depression compared to 150 (1.65%, 135.64 per 105 person-years) in the control group. The Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed that the adjustment hazard ratio (HR) for subsequent depression in patients with oral cancer diagnosed was 2.224 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.641–3.013, p < 0.001). It is noteworthy that in the sensitivity analysis is the adjusted HR in the group with depression diagnosis was 3.392 and in the oral cancer subgroup of “Tongue” was 2.539. This study shows oral cancer was associated with a significantly increased risk for developing subsequent depression and early identification and treatment of depression in oral cancer patients is crucial.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effect of varenicline directly observed therapy versus varenicline self-administered therapy on varenicline adherence and smoking cessation in methadone-maintained smokers: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Level of adherence to tobacco cessation medication regimens is believed to be causally related to medication effectiveness. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of varenicline directly observed therapy (DOT) on varenicline adherence and smoking cessation rates among smokers with opioid use disorder (OUD) receiving methadone treatment.

DESIGN

Multicenter, parallel-group two-arm randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Urban opioid treatment program (OTP) in the Bronx, New York, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Daily smokers of ≥ 5 cigarettes/day, interested in quitting (ladder of change score 6-8), in methadone treatment for ≥ 3 months, attending OTP ≥ 3 days/week. Participants' mean age was 49 years, 56% were male, 44% Latino, 30% Black, and they smoked a median of 10 cigarettes/day.

INTERVENTIONS

Individual, block, random assignment to 12 weeks of varenicline, either directly observed with methadone (DOT, n = 50) or via unsupervised self-administered treatment (SAT, n = 50).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was adherence measured by pill count. The secondary outcome was 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) < 8 parts per million.

FINDINGS

Retention at 24 weeks was 92%. Mean adherence was 78.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 71.8-85.2%] in the DOT group versus 61.8% in the SAT group (95% CI = 55.0-68.6%); differences were driven by DOT effects in the first 6 weeks. CO-verified abstinence did not differ between groups during the intervention (P = 0.26), but was higher in the DOT than the SAT group at intervention end (DOT = 18% versus SAT = 10%, difference = 8%, 95% CI = -13, 28); this difference was not significant (P = 0.39) and was not sustained at 24-week follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Among daily smokers attending opioid treatment programs, opioid treatment program-based varenicline directly observed therapy was associated with early increases in varenicline adherence compared with self-administered treatment, but findings were inconclusive as to whether directly observed therapy was associated with a difference in tobacco abstinence.

Cessation classification likelihood increases with higher expired-air carbon monoxide cutoffs: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) is commonly used to biochemically verify smoking status. The CO cutoff and CO monitor brand may affect the probability of classifying smokers as abstinent, thus influencing conclusions about the efficacy of cessation trials. No systematic reviews have tested this hypothesis. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis examining whether the likelihood of smoking cessation classification varied due to CO cutoff and monitor brand.

METHODS

Eligible studies (k = 122) longitudinally assessed CO-verified cessation in adult smokers in randomized trials. Primary meta-regressions separately assessed differences in quit classification likelihood due to continuous and categorical CO cutoffs (Low, 3-4 parts per million [ppm]; [SRNT] Recommended, 5-6 ppm; Moderate, 7-8 ppm; and High, 9-10 ppm); exploratory analyses compared likelihood outcomes between monitor brands: Bedfont and Vitalograph.

RESULTS

The likelihood of quit classification increased 18% with each 1 ppm increase above the lowest cutoff (3 ppm). Odds of classification as quit significantly increased between each cutoff category and High: 261% increase from Low; 162% increase from Recommended; and 150% increase from Moderate. There were no differences in cessation classification between monitor brands.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, higher CO cutoffs were associated with greater likelihood of cessation classification. The lack of CO monitor brand differences may have been due to model-level variance not able to be followed up in the present dataset. Researchers are advised to report outcomes using a range of cutoffs-including the recommended range (5-6 ppm)-and the CO monitor brand/model used. Using higher CO cutoffs significantly increases likelihood of quit classification, possibly artificially elevating treatment strategies.

Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: Current tobacco treatment guidelines have established the efficacy of available interventions, but they do not provide detailed guidance for common implementation questions frequently faced in the clinic. An evidence-based guideline was created that addresses several pharmacotherapy-initiation questions that routinely confront treatment teams.Methods: Individuals with diverse expertise related to smoking cessation were empaneled to prioritize questions and outcomes important to clinicians. An evidence-synthesis team conducted systematic reviews, which informed recommendations to answer the questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in the estimated effects and the strength of recommendations.Results: The guideline panel formulated five strong recommendations and two conditional recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy choices. Strong recommendations include using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch, using varenicline rather than bupropion, using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch in adults with a comorbid psychiatric condition, initiating varenicline in adults even if they are unready to quit, and using controller therapy for an extended treatment duration greater than 12 weeks. Conditional recommendations include combining a nicotine patch with varenicline rather than using varenicline alone and using varenicline rather than electronic cigarettes.Conclusions: Seven recommendations are provided, which represent simple practice changes that are likely to increase the effectiveness of tobacco-dependence pharmacotherapy.

Achieving Smoking Cessation Among Persons with Opioid Use Disorder

While prevalence of tobacco use in the US general population is declining, prevalence among those with opioid use disorder (OUD) remains high and results in excessive tobacco-related disease and premature mortality. Among smokers with OUD, tobacco cessation rates are negligible without treatment. However, both low-intensity behavioral interventions and more intensive motivational interventions yield negligible cessation rates. While contingency management has potent short-term cessation effects, effects are not maintained at post-intervention follow-up. Evidence-based smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, result in very modest cessation rates among smokers with OUD. Intensification of pharmacotherapy, such as high-dose and combination nicotine replacement therapy or extended medication treatment, has failed to improve cessation outcomes compared with standard treatment regimens. Targeting the unique challenges faced by smokers with OUD, including nicotine-opioid interactions and poor medication adherence, has potential to improve cessation outcomes, but further research is needed to optimize intervention efficacy among smokers with OUD.

Smokers with opioid use disorder may have worse drug use outcomes after varenicline than nicotine replacement

INTRODUCTION

Smokers with opioid use disorder (OUD) have little success with smoking cessation, possibly due to interactions between nicotine and opioid receptor systems. Smokers with OUD versus non-opioid substance use disorders (NOUD) have not been compared for response to smoking treatment. Data to make this comparison came from our previous study of 12 weeks (plus dose run-up) of varenicline (VAR) versus 12 weeks of nicotine patch (NRT), in a double-placebo design.

METHODS

The current study reports secondary analyses comparing smokers with OUD (n = 47) and NOUD (n = 90) on pretreatment smoking, alcohol and drug use, intolerance of physical discomfort, smoking medication adherence, and 3- and 6-month smoking and substance use outcomes (by VAR versus NRT).

RESULTS

Smokers with OUD did not differ on pretreatment alcohol or smoking measures while reporting significantly more drug use days. Smokers with OUD versus NOUD had significantly fewer days adherent to VAR or placebo capsules but not to patches, and were more tolerant of physical discomfort. While smoking and heavy drinking days at follow-ups did not differ by diagnosis, smokers with OUD had significantly more drug use days in months 4-6 when assigned to VAR (16.4 days) than to NRT (8.1 days).

CONCLUSIONS

NRT might be a better choice than VAR for smokers with OUD due to lower adherence and more drug use days with VAR. However, this novel comparison of smoking pharmacotherapy response in smokers with OUD versus NOUD needs to be confirmed with larger numbers of participants.

Perceived barriers to quitting cigarettes among hospitalized smokers with substance use disorders: A mixed methods study

AIMS

Smoking cessation may promote long-term recovery in patients with substance use disorders (SUD). Yet smoking rates remain alarmingly high in this population. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, we examined smoking rates among hospitalized patients with SUD at a large safety-net hospital, and then characterized factors associated with smoking behaviors both quantitatively and qualitatively.

METHOD

We abstracted data from all hospital admissions (7/2016-6/2017) and determined demographics, substance use type, and other characteristics associated with cigarette use among those with SUD. We then conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 hospitalized SUD smokers. We analyzed transcripts to characterize factors that affect patients' smoking habits, focusing on the constructs of the Health Belief Model.

RESULTS

The prevalence of cigarette smoking among hospitalized smokers with SUD was three times higher than those without SUD. Qualitative analyses showed that patients perceived that smoking cigarettes was a less serious concern than other substances. Some patients feared that quitting cigarettes could negatively impact their recovery and perceived that clinicians do not prioritize treating tobacco dependence. Almost all patients with heroin use disorder described how cigarette use potentiated their heroin high. Many SUD patients are turning to vaping and e-cigarettes to quit smoking.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized patients with SUD have disproportionately high smoking rates and perceive multiple barriers to quitting cigarettes. When designing and implementing smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients with SUD, policymakers should understand and take into account how patients with SUD perceive smoking-related health risks and how that influences their decision to quit smoking.

Longitudinal Findings from a Randomized Clinical Trial of Varenicline for Alcohol Use Disorder with Comorbid Cigarette Smoking

BACKGROUND

This study is the first to examine longitudinal posttreatment outcomes of a placebo-controlled trial of varenicline for alcohol use disorder (AUD) with comorbid cigarette smoking.

METHODS

Participants were 131 adults (n = 39 female) seeking alcohol treatment in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, 16-week multisite trial of varenicline combined with medical management (MM). Timeline follow-back assessments of alcohol and smoking behavior were conducted at the end of treatment (4 months), with follow-ups at 6, 9, and 12 months. Outcomes were percentage of heavy drinking days (PHDD), percent of participants with no heavy drinking days (NHDD), cotinine-confirmed prolonged smoking abstinence (PA), and good clinical outcome on either NHDD or PA.

RESULTS

Treatment improvements were maintained posttreatment. For the sample overall, PHDD or NHDD did not differ significantly by treatment condition (ps > 0.13), but varenicline produced higher rates of PA versus placebo at 4, 9, and 12 months (p < 0.05). Significant differences were observed by sex: Males had higher rates of NHDD with varenicline (28.9%) versus placebo (6.4%) at the end of treatment (p = 0.004), and these effects were maintained at 12 months (varenicline: 40.0% vs. placebo: 19.2%, p = 0.03). Higher rates of PA were seen for varenicline in both males (8.9%) and females (21.1%) versus placebo (males/females: 0%) at the end of treatment (p = 0.05), and this effect was maintained at 12 months for females (varenicline: 21.1% vs. placebo, 0.0%, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline treatment combined with MM appears to have enduring benefits for patients with co-occurring AUD and cigarette smoking, and these effects may differ by sex.

Effects of Varenicline, Depressive Symptoms, and Region of Enrollment on Smoking Cessation in Depressed Smokers

Introduction

Despite effective treatments, relapse to smoking remains a vexing global health problem. One predictor of relapse is depressive symptoms. Medications such as varenicline reduce withdrawal-related symptoms of depression, reducing relapse. This study examined whether varenicline moderated the effect of depressive symptoms on relapse, and whether this varied by region of enrollment.

Methods

Adult smokers (n = 525; 37% male) with past or current, stable major depressive disorder recruited from United States (n = 255), and European (n = 270) sites participated in a randomized, double-blind cessation treatment trial including 12 weeks of varenicline or placebo, with 40-week nontreatment follow-up.

Results

Longitudinal and binary logistic regressions were used to model the probability of sustained abstinence by end of treatment and point-prevalence abstinence in follow-up. The association between depression symptoms and abstinence was moderated by intervention group at end of treatment, and by region during follow-up: more severe symptoms were associated with end-of-treatment relapse for placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91, p = .003), but not varenicline (OR = 0.99, p = .568). During follow-up, increased symptoms of depression predicted greater likelihood of smoking for European (p = .009) but not US participants. Europeans were more likely to be abstinent for both outcomes (p < .01).

Conclusions

These results extend studies demonstrating varenicline is associated with less withdrawal-related depression, and suggest it aids cessation even in smokers with depressive symptoms. Findings also suggest regional differences in the relationship between depressive symptoms and cessation that may be related to differences in prevalence.

Implications

This study indicates varenicline may aid cessation partially by reducing withdrawal-related symptoms of depression. It also suggests that the impact of depressive symptoms on cessation varies regionally, and that this variation may be related to differences in smoking prevalence.

Sequential and simultaneous treatment approaches to cannabis use disorder and tobacco use

Tobacco smoking among those seeking treatment for cannabis use disorder (CUD) is common and is a negative predictor of cannabis outcomes. Quitting tobacco may be beneficial for those seeking to quit cannabis use. This initial proof of concept, controlled trial was designed to compare a simultaneous versus sequential tobacco intervention among those seeking treatment for CUD. Sixty-seven adults received either a simultaneous (SIM) or sequential (SEQ) approach to tobacco cessation in the context of outpatient treatment for CUD. A tobacco intervention (TI) that combined web-based counseling with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was provided during weeks 1-12 for SIM and was delayed until weeks 13-24 for SEQ. During weeks 1-12, no between-condition significant differences were observed on treatment participation or cannabis use outcomes. The majority of SIM participants initiated TI counseling (62%), 50% made at least one quit attempt and 41% initiated NRT. Interestingly, 39% in SEQ made tobacco quit attempts and 18% initiated NRT on their own before the TI was offered to them. However, only 30% of those in SEQ continued treatment during weeks 13-24, which compromised between-condition comparisons following the TI, but illustrated a potential clinical concern with delaying the TI. Tobacco cessation outcomes generally were poor and did not differ between conditions. This initial controlled trial suggests that addressing tobacco use during CUD treatment is acceptable and generates action towards tobacco cessation. Additional trials testing more intensive TI models may be necessary to identify more efficacious interventions for co-use of cannabis and tobacco.

Predicting Intention to Use Nicotine Replacement Therapy in People Attending Residential Treatment for Substance Dependence

OBJECTIVE

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is recommended as a frontline smoking cessation tool for people attending mental health and substance dependence treatment services. Previous research suggests that NRT is underutilized in these settings. To improve the use of NRT among people attending residential treatment for substance use disorders, it is important that the factors influencing smokers' decisions to use NRT are understood. The study aimed to examine (1) smoking cessation strategies used by participants in previous quit attempts, (2) participants' attitudes toward NRT (i.e., safety concerns and perceived efficacy), and (3) the predictors of participants' intention to use NRT to support future quit attempts.

METHODS

Participants completed a cross-sectional survey that examined their smoking behaviors, previous experiences using smoking cessation strategies, attitudes and beliefs regarding NRT, and intention to use NRT as part of future quit attempts (N = 218). All participants were attending residential treatment for substance use disorders provided by We Help Ourselves, a large provider of specialist alcohol and other drug treatment in Australia.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents (98%) reported that they had smoked regularly in their lifetime, and 89% were current smokers. Forty-five percent of the current smokers reported that they had previously used NRT to support a quit attempt, with 54% reporting that they intended to use NRT to support a future quit attempt. Intentions to use NRT were not related to the participants' mental health status or the participants' perceptions regarding the safety or potential drawbacks associated with using NRT. However, participants were more likely to report that they would use NRT to support future quit attempts if they were female, had previously used NRT, and perceived NRT to be effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving the use of evidence-based smoking cessation strategies within substance use treatment continues to be a priority. To enhance the use of NRT among consumers attending mental health and addiction treatment services, NRT should be universally offered. Future research should consider strategies that help to improve participants' positive perceptions regarding the efficacy of NRT.

Feasibility and Preliminary Effectiveness of Varenicline for Treating Co-Occurring Cannabis and Tobacco Use

Few studies have evaluated treatment for co-occurring cannabis and tobacco use. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of varenicline for co-occurring cannabis and tobacco use. Participants who reported cannabis use on ≥5 days per week were recruited from an urban, outpatient opioid treatment program (OTP). Participants were randomized to either four weeks of standard OTP clinical care (SCC; medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder and individual behavioral counseling), followed by four weeks of SCC plus varenicline (SCC+VT), or to four weeks of SCC+VT followed by four weeks of SCC. All participants contributed feasibility and outcome data during both study phases. Of 193 persons screened, seven were enrolled. Retention at eight weeks was 100%. No adverse effects prompted varenicline discontinuation. Participants reported lower cannabis craving during the SCC+VT phase compared to baseline, and lower frequencies and quantities of cannabis use compared to both baseline and the SCC alone phase. In the SCC+VT phase, participants also reported fewer cigarettes per day. Among persons with co-occurring cannabis and tobacco use, varenicline is well-tolerated and may reduce cannabis craving, cannabis use, and tobacco use.

Effects of varenicline versus transdermal nicotine replacement therapy on cigarette demand on quit day in individuals with substance use disorders

RATIONALE

Cigarette demand is a behavioral economic measure of the relative value of cigarettes. Decreasing the value of cigarette reinforcement may help with quitting smoking.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of initial use of varenicline (VAR) versus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on demand for cigarettes on quit day among smokers with substance use disorders (SUD) and to determine whether reduced demand was associated with subsequent abstinence from smoking at 1 and 3 months.

METHODS

Participants (N = 110) were randomized to double-blind, double-placebo conditions: VAR with placebo NRT or NRT with placebo capsules. The cigarette purchase task (CPT) was used to assess demand for cigarettes at baseline and on quit day, following a 1-week medication dose run-up/placebo capsule lead-in and first day use of the patch.

RESULTS

Demand for cigarettes decreased from baseline to quit day without significant differences between medications. Reductions in CPT intensity (number of cigarettes that would be smoked if they were free) and CPT breakpoint (lowest price at which no cigarettes would be purchased) predicted greater likelihood of abstaining on quit day. Reduced intensity predicted length of abstinence at 1 and 3 months while reduced breakpoint predicted only 1 month length of abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial therapeutic doses of VAR and NRT resulted in similar reductions in cigarette reinforcement. Larger initial reductions in demand on quit day were associated with early success with abstaining from cigarettes. Behavioral economic approaches may be useful for identifying individuals who benefit less from pharmacotherapy and may need additional treatment resources.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00756275.

Treating Smokers in Substance Treatment With Contingent Vouchers, Nicotine Replacement and Brief Advice Adapted for Sobriety Settings

Treatment for substance use disorders (SUD) provides an opportunity to use voucher-based treatment for smoking. Nicotine replacement (NRT) could improve outcomes previously observed with vouchers without NRT.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial compared contingent vouchers (CV) for smoking abstinence to noncontingent vouchers (NV), when all received counseling and NRT. Smokers who had not sought smoking treatment (n=340) in residential SUD treatment were provided 14days of vouchers for complete smoking abstinence per exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) after a 5-day smoking reduction period, or vouchers only for breath samples, plus brief advice (four sessions) and 8weeks of NRT.

RESULTS

Within treatment, 20% had complete abstinence with CV, 5% with NV (p<.001), and participants showed 50% of days abstinent in CV compared to 22% in NV (p<.001). Across 1, 3, 6 and 12months after randomization, CV resulted in significantly fewer cigarettes per day (p<.01) and fewer days smoking (p<.01), but with small effects. Point-prevalence abstinence differences across follow-up (e.g., 4% CV, 2% in NV at 6 and 12months) were not significant. No differences in substance use were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Within-treatment effects on abstinence are stronger than in a prior study of the same CV with BA but without NRT, but NRT does not improve abstinence after vouchers end. Implications for voucher-based treatment include investigating effects when combined with stronger smoking medications and using motivational interviewing. Smoking treatment does not harm SUD recovery.